(15-06-2014 04:41 PM)Anna Wrote: I know a bit about him but haven't read any of his works yet.
Yes it was a revelation, it was Gabriel who dictated the Quran. And about that trip, it's what he said. I dont think there were any witnesses who saw him mount a winged horse and fly all the way to jerusalem then up into the heavens. This is fairytale shit, and I am ashamed to accept that every Muslim believes this but it is not possible and it shouldnt be believed since no one saw him do that, it may as well have been a dream. Its said that angel Gabriel cut his esophagus down to his stomach and emptied the contents and filled it with a golden fluid of wisdom, I mean really?

Quote:After examining early non-Muslim sources that mention Muhammad dating from the seventh century, British historian and scholar of Islamic history, Michael Cook concludes:

[This material] precludes any doubts as to whether Muhammad was a real person: he is named in a Syriac source that is likely to date from the time of the conquests, and there is an account of him in a Greek source of the same period [...] The Armenian chronicler of the 660s attests that Muhammad was a merchant, and confirms the centrality of Abraham in his preaching.

So yes, Muhammad was an historically verified person. From what I've read and understand, he kind of sounds like he may have been prone to epileptic fits and rants quite publicly. So, that may account for him being associated with "magic" stories or "visions" or whatever.

I know in the Qur'an there are several instances where jinns or genies are mentioned. The jinn, the humans, and the angels make up the three creations of God/Allah. Like humans, the jinn can be good, evil, or just ok and have free will like humans. Angels do not have free will - they do whatever god tells them to do. Yes, Qur'an is very derivative of Torah, OT, and NTBibles along with a mixture of Muhammad's existing local folklore.

In my opinion, this average guy heard a bunch of stories as a kid, which contained a bunch of different beliefs and when he went all goofy, he ranted about it in public. That's when people decided that surely he must be a prophet and if not, then he's crazy. But since he's talking about God... whom we believe in ... then he can't be crazy. Nothing has really changed since then.
***

About the actual book Qur'an... there's this from Wikipedia...

Quote:According to traditional Islamic scholarship, all of the Qur'an was written down by Muhammad's companions while he was alive (during AD 610-632), but it was primarily an orally related document. The written compilation of the whole Qur'an in its definite form as we have it now was not completed until many years after the death of Muhammad.

I know that the earliest existing written version of the Qur'an is characterized by it's kufic script and has been dated to the 9th century. Supporters of it's provenance tried to insist that it dates from the 7th century but, kufic script did not exist prior to the 9th century. So ... that puts it quite a bit after Muhammad's death.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein

(15-06-2014 12:26 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote: The early Christians believed Christ was God incarnate and were willing to die for this belief.

Why was the threat of death something they had to be concerned about?

Because the first Christians WERE JEWISH. And the belief that Jesus of Nazareth was One with the Father was blasphemous in the eyes of the Jewish Religious establishment which is what these Christians were proclaiming.

First of all, is there any evidence outside the Bible that the founders of Christianity were killed? If so, what is it? If not, then you're using the founder's deaths to justify the truth of the Bible, and you're using the Bible to make the claim they were killed. It's circular.

Secondly, even if it weren't circular, all you've proven is they really believed it. Belief doesn't make something true, or do you believe all of the world's religions are simultaneously true?

(15-06-2014 12:53 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote: And yes, Jim Jones' followers believed in their leader and so do the suicide bombers.

What is your point?

It means that just because someone is willing to die for something doesn't make it true; it just means they really really believe in it. Unless you're asserting the claims of the Jonestown cult and Islam are also true.

He knew what your point was. He has proven himself to be an intellectually dishonest person. Just as the 9/11 perps were willing to die for their beliefs, it says nothing about the truth of their delusions.

Insufferable know-it-all. God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.

(15-06-2014 04:41 PM)Anna Wrote: I know a bit about him but haven't read any of his works yet.
Yes it was a revelation, it was Gabriel who dictated the Quran. And about that trip, it's what he said. I dont think there were any witnesses who saw him mount a winged horse and fly all the way to jerusalem then up into the heavens. This is fairytale shit, and I am ashamed to accept that every Muslim believes this but it is not possible and it shouldnt be believed since no one saw him do that, it may as well have been a dream. Its said that angel Gabriel cut his esophagus down to his stomach and emptied the contents and filled it with a golden fluid of wisdom, I mean really?

Quote:After examining early non-Muslim sources that mention Muhammad dating from the seventh century, British historian and scholar of Islamic history, Michael Cook concludes:

[This material] precludes any doubts as to whether Muhammad was a real person: he is named in a Syriac source that is likely to date from the time of the conquests, and there is an account of him in a Greek source of the same period [...] The Armenian chronicler of the 660s attests that Muhammad was a merchant, and confirms the centrality of Abraham in his preaching.

So yes, Muhammad was an historically verified person. From what I've read and understand, he kind of sounds like he may have been prone to epileptic fits and rants quite publicly. So, that may account for him being associated with "magic" stories or "visions" or whatever.

I know in the Qur'an there are several instances where jinns or genies are mentioned. The jinn, the humans, and the angels make up the three creations of God/Allah. Like humans, the jinn can be good, evil, or just ok and have free will like humans. Angels do not have free will - they do whatever god tells them to do. Yes, Qur'an is very derivative of Torah, OT, and NTBibles along with a mixture of Muhammad's existing local folklore.

In my opinion, this average guy heard a bunch of stories as a kid, which contained a bunch of different beliefs and when he went all goofy, he ranted about it in public. That's when people decided that surely he must be a prophet and if not, then he's crazy. But since he's talking about God... whom we believe in ... then he can't be crazy. Nothing has really changed since then.
***

About the actual book Qur'an... there's this from Wikipedia...

Quote:According to traditional Islamic scholarship, all of the Qur'an was written down by Muhammad's companions while he was alive (during AD 610-632), but it was primarily an orally related document. The written compilation of the whole Qur'an in its definite form as we have it now was not completed until many years after the death of Muhammad.

I know that the earliest existing written version of the Qur'an is characterized by it's kufic script and has been dated to the 9th century. Supporters of it's provenance tried to insist that it dates from the 7th century but, kufic script did not exist prior to the 9th century. So ... that puts it quite a bit after Muhammad's death.

The time of the conquests is/was too late for verification, if the cult had been introduced to unify the disparate empire. That refutes nothing Spencer said. The second reference would depend on what else was involved. Saying "I heard there was a guy named Muhammad" is not going to cut it.

Insufferable know-it-all. God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.

(15-06-2014 08:11 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: The time of the conquests is/was too late for verification, if the cult had been introduced to unify the disparate empire. That refutes nothing Spencer said. The second reference would depend on what else was involved. Saying "I heard there was a guy named Muhammad" is not going to cut it.

I might tend to agree but on a very basic level, I also tend to give reasonable scholars some benefit of doubt. The very fact that there were non-Muslim references to source at all, seems to be more verification than can be found for Jesus.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein

(15-06-2014 07:21 PM)RobbyPants Wrote: First of all, is there any evidence outside the Bible that the founders of Christianity were killed? If so, what is it? If not, then you're using the founder's deaths to justify the truth of the Bible, and you're using the Bible to make the claim they were killed. It's circular.

Secondly, even if it weren't circular, all you've proven is they really believed it. Belief doesn't make something true, or do you believe all of the world's religions are simultaneously true?

It means that just because someone is willing to die for something doesn't make it true; it just means they really really believe in it. Unless you're asserting the claims of the Jonestown cult and Islam are also true.

He knew what your point was. He has proven himself to be an intellectually dishonest person. Just as the 9/11 perps were willing to die for their beliefs, it says nothing about the truth of their delusions.

That was my point.

And, yeah, he knew.

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man

(15-06-2014 04:40 PM)childeye Wrote: Respectfully you are not a Christian. You therefore don't know what you're talking about, which is understandable.

Unfortunately for you, (still not having produced even ONE reference) it is one of my (few) fields of expertise. Nowhere does it say you have to be a believer to be a scholar. There are many scholars that are not believers, AND you again have stated something without backing it up with any reasoning or reference. In fact you stated something flatly false. I lie. Being a believer does not make you an expert in anything.

I'm just saying what is self-evident. The son is the image of the Father. Anointed by God is the same as being sent by God. Hence the true image of God sent by God. I will give you some references from scripture.

2 Corinthians 4:6
For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Colossians 1:15-16.
15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

John 1:14
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

I've read much of what you post. It is impressive work and very informative. For that I thank you. Of course you don't have to be a so called "believer" ( a secular terminology), to be a scholar. But it makes perfect sense that a True Christian would know about Christ. That is what being a disciple is all about.

(15-06-2014 06:25 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Unfortunately for you, (still not having produced even ONE reference) it is one of my (few) fields of expertise. Nowhere does it say you have to be a believer to be a scholar. There are many scholars that are not believers, AND you again have stated something without backing it up with any reasoning or reference. In fact you stated something flatly false. I lie. Being a believer does not make you an expert in anything.

I'm just saying what is self-evident. The son is the image of the Father. Anointed by God is the same as being sent by God. Hence the true image of God sent by God. I will give you some references from scripture.

2 Corinthians 4:6
For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Colossians 1:15-16.
15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

John 1:14
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

I've read much of what you post. It is impressive work and very informative. For that I thank you. Of course you don't have to be a so called "believer" ( a secular terminology), to be a scholar. But it makes perfect sense that a True Christian would know about Christ. That is what being a disciple is all about.

That is a mixture of ad hominem and no true scotsman fallacies. There is no reason that he can't know scripture as well or better than you do, regardless of your religious stance, which, btw, makes you no more an expert of theology than being English makes you an expert on anglo saxon history.

(15-06-2014 10:55 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: The very early Christians didn't think that.
They fought about what that meant in the councils, as they worked on cooking up their new beligion.

Comments like this are exactly why the OP is in the wrong place for asking such questions.

The early Christians believed Christ was God incarnate and were willing to die for this belief.

Why was the threat of death something they had to be concerned about?

Because the first Christians WERE JEWISH. And the belief that Jesus of Nazareth was One with the Father was blasphemous in the eyes of the Jewish Religious establishment which is what these Christians were proclaiming.

Except the persecution was either wildly exaggerated or entirely invented.

[video=youtube]http://youtu.be/0L7Oeae5_OQ[/quote]

So there's that.

Quote:The notion that early Christians were meek, passive and unrelentingly persecuted for their religious beliefs has been manufactured by early church historians like Eusebius, writes New Testament scholar Moss (Early Christianity/Univ. of Notre Dame; The Other Christs: Imitating Jesus in Ancient Christian Ideologies of Martyrdom, 2010, etc.), disguising the true violent, militaristic tone of the early Christian message. The author addresses deeply troubling aspects of an us-vs.-them mentality she sees rampant in today’s secularized world, from Islamic suicide bombers to the use of Joan of Arc by the French political right to Republican Christian voters viewing themselves as a persecuted minority. First, Moss wades through examples in the ancient world, including the high-profile cases of Greek and Roman heroes like Achilles, Socrates and Lucretia, who died for their beliefs, offering a model for the early Christians to borrow from. The author then moves into the early Christian era, when accounts of martyred apostles like Stephen and converts like Polycarp and Perpetua established a rich literary tradition after the imitation of Christ, with details altered and shaped by later Christian apologists. Key to Moss’ narrative is the history of Roman persecution of Christians, which she finds overblown, explaining the “sporadic” persecution as a politically motivated, entirely understandable move to suppress a pesky group of insurgents who constituted a threat to order and piety. The myth of martyrdom—and the expectation of huge rewards in heaven—was effective in organizing a cohesive early Christian identity, which involved the notion of being “under attack” and justified a violent reaction. While none of Moss’ arguments are particularly new or striking, she provides an intriguing venture that begs for more research and focus.

(15-06-2014 10:27 PM)childeye Wrote: I'm just saying what is self-evident. The son is the image of the Father. Anointed by God is the same as being sent by God. Hence the true image of God sent by God. I will give you some references from scripture.

2 Corinthians 4:6
For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Colossians 1:15-16.
15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

John 1:14
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

I've read much of what you post. It is impressive work and very informative. For that I thank you. Of course you don't have to be a so called "believer" ( a secular terminology), to be a scholar. But it makes perfect sense that a True Christian would know about Christ. That is what being a disciple is all about.

That is a mixture of ad hominem and no true scotsman fallacies. There is no reason that he can't know scripture as well or better than you do, regardless of your religious stance, which, btw, makes you no more an expert of theology than being English makes you an expert on anglo saxon history.

Respectfully, I never said he can't know scripture as well or better than I do. I said he doesn't know Christ as well as a disciple of Christ.

A person very dear to me was badly hurt through a misunderstanding and miscommunication. For this, I am sorry, and he knows it. That said, any blaming me for malicious intent is for the birds. I will not wear some scarlet letter, I will not be anybody's whipping girl, and I will not lurk in silence.